British Steel

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to return to the subject of Scunthorpe and British Steel. I start by saying once again, as I said on the last occasion, that our thoughts today must be with the steel-workers, their families, the suppliers and the communities whose future hangs in the balance in what is a very difficult and challenging situation.

We welcome the news that British Steel’s redundancy plans have been halted. This will be a relief to the workers and their families who have endured months of uncertainty because, when one looks at the background to this whole situation, one sees that the Government have just not had any plan at all for British Steel. As was said when we met on Saturday 12 April, during the Recess, this situation should never have been allowed to reach this point. The closure of the Stellantis plant in Luton—as long ago as 29 November last year—was a stark warning, yet still the Government failed to act in time. So, although today’s Statement brings some short-term reassurance, it is by no means a resolution. This is only the beginning. I say to the Minister that we now need urgent clarity. We need to understand how the Government plan to secure the future of the British steel industry.

That includes a clear strategy to boost domestic steel production, a credible plan to attract and sustain private sector investment, and an assurance that the broad powers that the Government have taken will genuinely be temporary. Although we are told that these powers will not be held

“for a minute more than is necessary”,—[Official Report, Commons, 12/4/25; col. 843.]

the Government’s recent approach with delegated powers and Henry VIII clauses is precisely why this House called for a sunset clause. Parliament was just not given sufficient time to scrutinise the Bill properly, and the Government should have taken that opportunity to come back to Parliament with improved proposals that had not been rushed through. Sadly, that proposal was rejected. We now have a commitment that the Secretary of State will provide updates every four weeks, and we are going to have a debate in this House, in September or October, on the future of British steel. This is very much what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and many of us called for on the last occasion, but the House really now needs to hear a commitment from the Minister that this will be a substantive debate. On the last occasion, the Minister said:

“I can confirm that my noble friend the Chief Whip will facilitate a fuller debate on the Floor of the House on the operation of what will then be the Act”.—[Official Report, 12/4/25; col. 534.]


I do not know whether the Minister has had an opportunity of talking to her colleague, but we really would like some further detail, because this House must be given the opportunity to scrutinise and influence the direction of policy in a substantive debate. Can we please have that assurance?

We must of course also address the cost to the taxpayer. Have the Government provided any form of estimated assessment of the public cost so far? Looking ahead, where will the ongoing costs land, especially if the government intervention continues or escalates? On that point, the Business Secretary has now said repeatedly that nationalisation is likely. Can the Minister confirm that any move towards nationalisation will not be rushed through at the last minute via emergency legislation? If it is indeed the Government’s intention to nationalise, they should make that clear today and bring forward legislation without delay. This House must be given the opportunity properly to debate and scrutinise such a significant move. What happened during the Recess is not acceptable and should not be repeated, because it was an appalling way for Ministers to treat Parliament. The Government should act in a timely way to prevent unnecessary uncertainty and strain on our steel sector workers and their families.

Then to the matter of the Government’s long-promised steel strategy: we are told that this will be laid before us very soon. Can the Minister give us an idea of what it will contain? Specifically, will the Government consider, or reconsider, opening coking coal mines in the UK? On the last occasion we debated this, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, asked the Minister:

“Will the Government reconsider the decision not to support the Cumbrian mine, which can produce high quality coking coal?”.—[Official Report, 12/4/25; col. 517.]


There was no indication of an answer to her noble friend’s question in that debate, and we would love to hear an answer from the Minister today. I realise that there is a sulphur problem, but it is long standing and can be overcome. Can we please reconsider opening coking coal mines in the UK? It is patently absurd to reject domestic coking coal on environmental grounds, only to import it from thousands of miles away at a greater environmental and financial cost.

Secondly, the Government have committed £2.5 billion in investment in steel. Will the Minister clarify for what this funding is intended? Is it going to cover running costs? If not, who will? Are we expecting the taxpayer to carry that burden as well?

Finally, I have a broader question. Will the Government now reconsider elements of their environmental policy and regulatory framework that have at times actively harmed UK industry? Of course we must stay committed to our environmental obligations, but surely that must be balanced with industrial viability, energy, security and economic growth. Can the Minister confirm whether such a review is under active consideration?

The British steel industry is a strategic national asset. It surely deserves better than piecemeal interventions and opaque announcements. I ask again: can we please be provided with the clarity, detail and honesty that this House, the other place and the thousands of workers and communities relying on us rightly demand now?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, when we debated the fate of British Steel on 12 April, the sense of urgency from the Government was palpable. As subsequent events played out, that sense of urgency was fully justified. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I would say it was timely legislation that Parliament moved effectively to deliver. That is why the contents of this Statement—as far as it goes—which sets out how both blast furnaces have been secured and the redundancy process has been ended, are good news. Everyone involved should be congratulated on pulling together and working so effectively to do that.

However, the haste of the legislation and the need for quick action leave a lot of open questions. I will ask a few more nitty-gritty questions. First, what about Port Talbot? I cannot help thinking the Welsh will be looking eastward and wondering where they fit into this programme. Have the Government had discussions with Tata Steel? How do the Government see the whole picture of steel in the United Kingdom, and how will they set that picture out to your Lordships?

Secondly, what is Jingye’s current status, in respect of British Steel but also the other steel-related businesses that it holds in the UK? Given the fractious nature of the past 10 days, how are the Government relating tousb the Chinese business that it still owns the site? What is the point of contact? Is it operational or departmental? Is it governmental, or is there no contact at all between Jingye and the people now running the plant? Can the Minister confirm whether there have been government-to-government discussions about this between the UK and the People’s Republic of China?

Thirdly, following some discussion during the take-note debate last week, I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, who was present on the Front Bench at the time, asking them to clarify the basis of international law that the Government are using, at WTO, EU and domestic legislative levels, to justify subsidising the operational functions of a business that they do not own? Perhaps the Minister could alert her officials to the existence of that letter and chivvy along the response.

In the Statement, in answer to the rhetorical question “What next?”, the Secretary of State said that

“All options are on the table”.


It would help your Lordships’ House if the Minister could explain what is meant by “all options”. More than this, I suggest that, to properly decide what should happen, the Government should have a very clear-eyed sense of their industrial strategy. We should not delude ourselves: the UK steel industry has been in a tough place for a very long time, and Saturday 12 April did not change that. For UK steel to flourish, it needs to be within an industrial strategy and within a defence industrial strategy. We are waiting for these, and the need for these anchoring strategies is ever more present. So, I ask the Minister: when will the industrial strategy be published?

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the Stellantis closure, which was announced on 29 November. This was surprising, because I would ask him: who was in government at the time that announcement was made? However, he said that steel is fundamental to Britain’s industrial strength, and we agree with that.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

The noble Lord has got the dates wrong.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

In that case, I withdraw the point.

To make the statement true, the industrial strategy should explain how it is going to build the steel industry, what steels are needed and what processes can deliver them. I have an outstanding question on the different sorts of steels that can be delivered by blast furnace and electric arc furnace; that question still has not been answered. It is my contention that many of the specialist steels we require, particularly for our defence industry, cannot be produced via current electric arc technology. I would like an answer to that question. It should explain how the demand for UK-made steels will be stimulated and grown, and it should devise an ownership structure that actually fits in with that strategy. At the moment, we are looking at ownership before we look at what we want the industry to do. I suggest that we should be looking at this the other way around.

Finally, unless the Government deal with the high cost of energy—which they did inherit from the Conservative Government—it is hard to see how any of this works. So, can the Minister at least acknowledge the problems faced by the whole manufacturing sector by disproportionately high energy costs, and can the Minister suggest how the Government are going to address that absolutely key issue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I think we have been clear about the best way forward: we would like this to be a commercially run business, with private investment and government acting in support. But we will do whatever it takes to give the UK the best chance to safeguard the future of steel-making. That is why we would talk about the most likely outcome, as the Secretary of State has mentioned, being that of nationalisation.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

If there are no further Back-Benchers, may I just ask a question of the Minister again, very briefly? We are impressed with her enthusiasm. Indeed, if I may say so, there is a spring in her step. She referred several times to the steel strategy being published in the spring. Well, I detect that summer—although we may not believe it—is just round the corner. So, when will that steel strategy be shared with this House?

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord very much and I am proud that I have a spring in my step. I am just back from a bank holiday weekend which I spent in a garden, and indeed it felt very spring-like. But until I take those covers from my ferns, it is not yet summer.

UK-US Trade and Tariffs

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I regret to tell the Minister that the Statement that we heard in the other place, which she has just repeated, has only increased the level of uncertainty that British businesses, workers and families are feeling at this critical time. The announcement of new tariffs is a blow to our economy, making goods more expensive, weakening demand and devaluing the pound in people’s pockets. Tariffs make us all poorer. Free trade, not protectionism, has driven Britain’s prosperity for generations and lifted billions of people worldwide out of poverty.

At a time when our economy is already fragile, I agree with the noble Baroness and her ministerial colleagues that we need cool heads. While I welcome the Government’s stated commitment to securing a trade deal with our closest ally and largest single-country trading partner, we must surely now be honest about what has actually happened. The truth is that the Government have not secured any special treatment from the White House. The Secretary of State and the Minister speak of success, but surely there is little to celebrate. Britain now finds itself in the same tariff band as countries such as Kosovo, Costa Rica and the Congo.

The impact of these tariffs on our industries will be severe. The automotive sector remains burdened by a 25% tariff on £8 billion-worth of car and auto parts exports. Our steel and aluminium industries continue to face 25% on exports, including over £2 billion of derivative products containing high steel and aluminium content. On a volume-weighted basis, our total £60 billion in UK exports will have an effective tax of what I calculate to be 13%.

This is not a moment of triumph for the Government. It is, I suppose, a moment that vindicates those who argued for Britain to have control over its own trade policy, but let us be clear: having control over trade policy means something only if that control is used effectively and, thus far, the Government have failed to do so.

Last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility warned that tariffs such as these could knock up to 1% off GDP. This comes at a time when the UK is already in a per-capita recession and when market confidence is shaky. Our businesses, which should be driving economic recovery, are instead facing increasing headwinds caused by this Government’s decisions.

Instead of supporting businesses, this Government are placing additional burdens upon them. Business taxes have risen, business rates have more than doubled for many, the so-called family business death tax has been introduced, and flawed recycling charges are adding yet another layer of unnecessary cost and bureaucracy. With these challenges mounting, it is no surprise at all that business confidence remains at rock bottom.

Then there is the issue of energy costs, which we have just been discussing. A manufacturer in Birmingham, UK now faces energy bills four times higher than a competitor in Birmingham, Alabama. The Government should be addressing this cost disparity, which has a far greater impact than tariffs; instead, businesses are being left to struggle on their own.

Only last week, we debated the Second Reading of what I termed the unemployment Bill. Overseen by the Secretary of State, it looms large: the OBR has not even been able to quantify how damaging the Bill will be for the economy. We do not need more uncertainty, more costs or more bureaucracy imposed on businesses. I suppose the Government felt obliged to rush that Bill through in their first 100 days and are now panicking and trying to push the Bill through by secondary legislation. Well, I leave that to the Committees of this House to deliver their verdict on.

Labour will, no doubt, claim that these tariffs are beyond its control. But let us remember that the previous Government had already made significant progress towards a US-UK trade deal. When President Trump was last in office, negotiations had reached an advanced stage. However, when the Democrat Party and President Biden were elected, his Administration ended all free trade negotiations. The unfortunate reality is that we could not implement a US trade deal until we finally left the EU, which coincided with the end of President Trump’s first term.

Well, the ball is now in the Government’s court. What have they done? I would contend from these Benches that, instead of securing a deal, they have wasted months; instead of acting swiftly to engage with the US Administration, they delayed; instead of protecting British businesses, they have let them down.

Their failure means that British businesses will now lose out and British jobs will be put at risk. The burden of these tariffs will not be borne by Ministers sitting comfortably in Whitehall but by the small manufacturers, the steelworkers, the automotive engineers and the entrepreneurs who drive our economy forward.

There is another issue that the Government must address: retaliatory tariffs. The Government must recognise the harm that a retaliatory trade war would inflict on British businesses and consumers. Escalating this dispute will not help our exporters; it will only drive up costs, disrupt supply chains and make it even harder for British firms to compete globally.

Will the Minister give this House a clear, binding guarantee that Britain will not escalate the situation by imposing retaliatory tariffs on US goods? The last thing businesses need is yet another wave of uncertainty. The Government must take the responsible path, de-escalate tensions, negotiate a fair outcome and avoid worsening an already dire situation. In her Statement, she referred to the fact that the Government are now launching a consultation period on the dangers of retaliatory action. Why on earth are we embarking on such an exercise? Can we please be brought up to date with the website that has been opened specially today? Indeed, the Statement warned us that more input would be published today. Can she please bring us up to date with what has happened?

May I mention the Windsor Framework? We have to consider the effect on Northern Ireland of what has happened today. Under that framework, there is a duty reimbursement scheme available to assist businesses affected by these tariffs. However, many businesses are still unaware of that support. The Government must do more than just acknowledge its existence. They have to take proactive steps to raise awareness for businesses in Northern Ireland and ensure that the scheme is as streamlined and accessible as possible for businesses trying to navigate these challenging conditions.

Finally, has the Minister read the comments made today by the chief executive of Make UK, the director-general of the BCC, the advisers at the IoD and many other trade bodies, who say what a black day this is for British business. What help can the Government give to lift the veil of uncertainty that they have created today by this Statement?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this is my first opportunity to ask the Minister questions. I give her my belated welcome to the portfolio. She is in a new world when it comes to the unjustified and aggressive trade war that the United States has been launching. My party was forged out of a campaign for free trade. We broke with others when they introduced protectionism. Our principled position on Brexit was based on a rejection of new barriers, new costs and more bureaucracy for businesses and uncertainty for consumers. These same principles apply to our revulsion at the unwarranted and unjustified applications of the new tariffs.

They are, of course, on top of the pre-announced automotive, steel and aluminium tariffs. We should also recall the existing tariffs on UK exports to the United States. It means that, to take one example that is very close to my heart as I represented a textile-producing constituency in Scotland, the cashmere industry, the highest-quality sustainable product in the world now has a 35% tax tariff on exporting to the United States. What support are the Government intending to provide to some of our key exporting sectors now, rather than waiting until after a consultation? These Benches believe that we should have been consulting in advance of the announcement, as Canada did, not after it, so that we had a prepared proposal for a clear statement of intent, rather than a hope for the best in any agreement.

Part of the Statement today that surprised and disappointed me was the news that only if we have not secured an economic agreement with the US will we propose corrective measures. This means that the timetable of UK actions is in the hands of the Trump Administration, not in the hands of our Government, and that surely is not acceptable. It is our duty to represent the interests of British industry and consumers, not the United States.

Can I also ask for clear language? It now seems that we are simply seeking an economic agreement rather than a free trade agreement. What are we seeking from the Trump Administration? There is a world of difference between a comprehensive free trade agreement and cobbling together a number of bilateral agreements on services and goods simply to make a show of reaching some form of agreement. If the Minister could be clear in the language, I would be grateful.

Furthermore, I sincerely believe that we have showed too much of our market offer to the United States, so it can see clearly the areas where we are willing to cede decision-making: closing tax avoidance for UK companies with profits over €20 billion that are not paying their fair share of tax within the United Kingdom; aligning our AI and data regulations to what the Trump Administration want rather than what this Parliament has legislated for; and reducing agricultural and food standards. Every other country with which we may seek an FTA now knows the areas where this Government are open to ceding ground. That, surely, is regrettable.

Two responses today require more scrutiny: one from the Government and one from the Conservatives. The Statement says that the wholly unjustified tariff rate “vindicates” the Government’s “pragmatic approach”, but we know that, as far as the Trump Administration are concerned, the United Kingdom is in the same category as El Salvador, Guatemala and Uruguay—none of which even flourished a cringeworthy letter from a King in the Oval Office. The worst element of the Trump Administration applying the 10% tariffs is that we are now in the same category as Russia, for goodness’ sake. How is it a vindication of our pragmatic approach if Trump sees trading with the United Kingdom as the same as trading with Russia?

The second argument we have heard today, including a bit that we got from the noble Lord, is that we may have fared better because we are out of the EU rather than in it—but that is only if we are starting from a higher base than what the reality is, with the biggest barriers that we have erected for our near trading neighbours. But the critical point is that the United Kingdom, for goods in particular but for services too, is one of the most interconnected trading economies in the world. Nearly 70% of our exports to the EU are intermediate input to the production of other goods and services, and the majority of UK goods manufactured in the UK are intermediate. Therefore, the majority of the goods that we make source parts and components from the EU, so we are impacted by the 20%. Will the Government’s assessment of the impact be not just a sectoral analysis but a full trade analysis, including all the impacts of what will be applied to our biggest trading market?

Even the former Conservative Trade Minister Greg Hands said today that, as a result of Brexit, we now have a more complex means by which we are steering a path in the US-EU trade war. It is even harder, because the more concessions we give to the United States, the further we move away from the TCA. What is the Government’s assessment of trying to triangulate between the EU and the US? We on these Benches believe that the response has to be deeper co-ordination with the European Union.

Before I close, an element that has not been mentioned today, which is particularly close to my heart, having co-chaired the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Trade out of Poverty for so long, is that this Parliament has debated long and hard about our relationship with developing economies, many of which are being hit very hard by the Trump Administration, and the response of this Government is to cut official development assistance and technical support for trade facilitation for developing economies. Our response is to be silent to the Trump Administration but to cut trade facilitation for emerging economies. This cannot be right for the United Kingdom as a free-trading nation.

As I close, my appeal to the Minister is that we need urgent full co-ordination with Canada and the European Union, not necessarily just on the potential corrective mechanisms that may well be necessary and we believe will be justified, but to ensure that there are fully co-ordinated anti-coercion measures. These are not trade measures being introduced by the Trump Administration; they are economic coercion measures, and it was a tragedy that the previous Government dropped the anti-coercion instrument that we could have continued as a result of Brexit. We need urgent clarification on that.

Finally, we need a European Union-UK-Canada co-ordinated response—I will call it Eureka. In response to the Trump Administration, we need a Eureka moment, not just a wait-and-see approach.

US Steel Import Tariffs

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm what conversations Ministers have had with their counterparts in the US about steel tariffs? How many times have Ministers spoken with US trade representatives since last Sunday, for instance? In particular, can she confirm that the first 500,000 tonnes of steel to the US will be tariff-free as they were under President Trump’s previous Administration? And finally, can she bring us up to date on the Government’s efforts to obtain a free trade agreement with the United States?

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and Treasury (Baroness Gustafsson) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I think we all agree that the US is an indispensable ally in many areas. As he may have seen, President Trump has said he has had a couple of good, constructive calls with Keir Starmer and the two enjoy a good relationship. The Prime Minister has said that he would like to work with the US to develop a trade deal, and we are keen to work with the Trump Administration to capitalise on opportunities and deepen and strengthen our relationship.

With regard to the specifics around what will happen within the steel sector, there is a lot of hypothesis and noise at the moment, but there are currently no established facts about what that will look like. The Government will make any key decisions in light of those key facts as and when they emerge, and we will not be drawn into a hypothetical conversation.

With regard to a free trade agreement, we have talked about the fact that the US is such a valuable ally, and we would love to be able to deepen those trading relationships. That said, 18% of our trade today already happens with the US. Any free trade agreement set in place would need to best represent UK interests.

Wales: Public Services

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord is quite right that growth was one of the biggest failures of the previous Government over the past 14 years. It is absolutely our priority to do something about that. Obviously, one Budget cannot turn around 14 years, but we have already seen its measures increasing growth throughout the United Kingdom in the medium term.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Will the Minister answer the question, please? There is an urgent need for infra- structure investment in Wales. What meetings does the Minister propose to have with his Labour counterparts in Wales, to ensure that key projects—such as the third Menai bridge to Ynys Môn, and the Newport bypass—go ahead as quickly as possible?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am not sure what question the noble Lord thinks I have not answered. He asked me specifically about investment projects. Of course, under his Government, we were the only country in the G7 to have investment levels below 20% of GDP. We have introduced planning reforms, which the previous Government could have introduced at any point in the past 14 years but did not. We are doing more on investment in a few months than the previous Government did in 14 years.